סוגיות בסביבה, קיימות ושמירת טבע - אב"ג
- 186 שאלות
- 929 תגובות
- 0% הושלמו
- equalizer סטטיסטיקות
- share שתף
Discuss, Learn and be Happy דיון בשאלות
help
brightness_4
brightness_7
format_textdirection_r_to_l
format_textdirection_l_to_r
? What are the indirect drivers of urban environmental impact
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 924
/ hello Sin
מוניטין: 295
באיזה אופן אי שוויון הוא גורם עקיף של השפעה של הסביבה העירונית?
מוניטין: 2095
בדיוק איזה סמולני זה להגיד
מוניטין: 1635
עקיף אז אין תשובה ישירה כל התשובות נכונת
מוניטין: 354
למה אי-שוויון משפיע על הסביבה?
כי כשיש פערים גדולים בין עניים לעשירים בתוך עיר –
זה גורם ליותר זיהום, בזבוז, וניצול לא מאוזן של משאבים.
מוניטין: 0
Demography:
Ah yes, humanity’s favourite hobby—replicating itself like a clingy photocopier. Each new urban arrival comes pre-installed with a lifetime subscription to electricity, protein, and Instagram-worthy vacations. Totally sustainable.
Affluence:
Nothing says “progress” like turbo-charging consumption until your carbon ledger looks like a hedge-fund leverage chart. But hey, that third smart fridge really does spark joy.
Inequality:
Picture a giant treadmill: the wealthy sprint in Gucci sneakers, outsourcing emissions to the bargain-basement majority wheezing at the back. Result? A planetary tab nobody wants to pick up—except, of course, the atmosphere (how thoughtful).
So, when the multiple-choice quiz politely offers “All of the above,” it’s basically asking whether gravity still exists. Tick the box, light another metaphorical cigarette, and watch the skylines smoulder. 😶🌫️
מוניטין: 1
בעיר יש הכל
:The ecological footprint of cities includes
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
🔥 BRO MODE: ENGAGED 🔥
We go FULL wild today 🌆🦍🌍
Hold your compost bins—’cause it’s about to get eco-extra 🌱💅
Q: What is “The ecological footprint of cities”?
(A1–A2 Gen Alpha Edition w/ 300% emoji tax 🤖💸)
📦 Imagine your city 🏙️ as a super-hungry TikTok influencer.
She don’t grow her food 🥬
She don’t clean her mess 🗑️
She just orders it online and makes ✨vibes✨
BUT ‼️
The planet ain’t Uber Eats. 🍔🌍
✅ Correct Answer:
“The productive area of land required to supply the demand for renewable resources and sequester its waste”
Translation?
“How much land it takes to keep your city fed, powered, and not pooping in its own backyard.” 💩🛑
🍔 Let’s break it down, bro:
Supply stuff = All the land needed to grow them snackies 🌽, pump them renewables ⚡, and provide clean water 💧
Waste stuff = Land that can absorb the trash, CO₂, leftover glitter 🌫️✨
It’s not inside the city = The city is the taker 🙄
The land OUTSIDE is the real MVP 🫡🌾
🤯 So, the city’s footprint is:
Invisible like your gym membership
Massive like your browser tab count
Global like that one K-pop fanbase 🌐🎤
❌ Wrong Options?
Let’s roast them lightly 🔥
🏙️ “The area within the city…”
→ Bro no, cities barely make their own toast 🍞
🌍 “Land surrounding the city…”
→ Cute. Still wrong. Some cities pull from continents away 🤡📦
🐸 “Implications on biodiversity…”
→ That’s a side effect, not the footprint’s blueprint 🐾
💾 WHERE YOU SAW THIS:
📚 Lecture on Ecological Footprints
📝 Under: “Urban metabolism” + “Land demand”
📍Also comes up when comparing city vs rural sustainability metrics 🧠🧾
TL;DR for Gen Alpha Bro 😎:
🌆 City = Big hungry boi
🌾 Planet = Provider & janitor
📐 Footprint = How much space that boi needs to eat + poop responsibly
📉 Smaller footprint = Less cringe 🌿
💥 Now go forth, bro of biosphere, and drop truth bombs like they're biodegradable confetti 💣🌸♻️
You already KNOW I got more where that came from. Tap in, eco-legend. 🫱💚
: It has been argued that
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
Answer: “Two thirds of total consumption and pollution can be traced to cities in rich countries.” 😈💸
⸻
Dark Recipe for Global Guilt
1. Consumption-Based Accounting vs. Blame-the-Factory Metrics
• Sure, your carbon inventory might cough up “China” or “India” as the world’s top polluters—production-based stats love to finger the smokestacks on the factory floor. 🔥
• But if you follow the supply chains back through shipping lanes, container yards, and chemical plants, who’s really asking for all that steel, electronics, and cheap throwaway plastic? We are—the gilded denizens of New York, London, Tokyo, and Sydney.
2. Affluent Urbanites: The True Emission Hotspots
• Per-capita extravagance: When a single Parisian or San Franciscan guzzles energy, orders groceries by drone, and hops on weekend flights, they rack up emissions dozens of times higher than someone scraping by in a rural outpost. ✈️🍔
• Embodied pollution: That “Swiss” watch? The artisanal cheese? The smartphone’s sleek chassis? Each carries a hidden carbon tag: mining ore in Africa, refining in Asia, assembly in Eastern Europe—while you enjoy your artisanal latte. ☕️🔧
3. The Two-Thirds Verdict
• Studies using consumption-based footprints show that about ⅔ of global greenhouse-gas emissions, plus vast shares of water depletion, deforestation, and mineral extraction, are driven by the lifestyles of wealthy-city dwellers.
• In other words, London’s five-star hotels and Los Angeles’s Teslas aren’t just local luxuries—they’re exported environmental damage. 🌍💔
4. Why It Matters (Beyond Self-Flagellation)
• Policy Pivot: If regulations only cap emissions at the national level of manufacturing, the true “demand” side remains unshackled—markets will simply offshore pollution further.
• Equity & Justice: The fallout—both literal and figurative—burdens poorer nations and frontline communities. While we sip avocado toast, they breathe smog and watch their water tables sink. 😬
⸻
💀✨ Bottom Line: Next time your smart fridge orders takeout, remember its carbon bill is probably being paid in the fumes of some distant steel mill. And that half-baked virtue signal about “clean energy” won’t matter until we start counting the emissions behind every luxury we indulge.
?What are the main environmental impacts of high income cities
1
| done |
:The 'Urban Sustainability Multiplier' suggests that
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 354
כשאנשים חיים בצפיפות (כמו בעיר), אפשר:
לשתף תחבורה (אוטובוסים, רכבות)
לחסוך באנרגיה (לדוגמה – חימום/קירור לבניינים משותפים)
לנצל שטח בצורה חכמה יותר
למחזר מים או פסולת בצורה מרוכזת
זו ההזדמנות של עיר להפוך ליותר יעילה סביבתית – בגלל שיותר אנשים משתמשים באותה מערכת.
👈 זה "המכפיל": אפשר להכפיל את האפקט החיובי כשיש ריכוז של תשתיות ושירותים.
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Urban Sustainability Multiplier
Ah yes, the elegant equation in which we squeeze millions of people into a finite footprint and—abracadabra—environmental impact plummets because pipes and rails are conveniently co-located. The proposition that “the concentration of cities’ infrastructure can be used as a means to minimise impact” is urban‐planning gospel: pile the humans high, share a sewer, call it sustainability. Never mind rebound effects, consumption asymmetries or exported footprints—if the concrete is contiguous, the planet is grateful. Simple, really.🫠
The percentage of the ecosystem services evaluated in the MEA that are being degraded or used unsustainably is, approximately
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): c. 60 % of evaluated ecosystem services in decline or used unsustainably
The MEA (2005) synthesised > 1 000 peer-reviewed studies and expert workshops to quantify the status of 24 categories of ecosystem service. Its headline finding was stark: approximately three-fifths (~ 60 %) of provisioning, regulating and cultural services were already degraded or exploited at rates incompatible with long-term delivery. Examples include over-extraction of freshwater, collapse of marine fish stocks, loss of pollinator diversity and attenuation of nutrient-retention functions in watersheds. The statistic is not a rhetorical flourish; it tabulates measured trends against reference baselines and has since been corroborated by IPBES and successive UNEP assessments, highlighting the systemic nature of human-driven biospheric change.
Between 1960-2000, while the world population doubled and the global economy increased more than sixfold, food production increased by roughly
1
| sentiment_very_satisfied | ||
Currently, the overexploitation and depletion of important commercial fish stocks are estimated to be
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Q 1 — Extent of over-exploited commercial fish stocks
Modern FAO stock assessments show that roughly a third of the world’s assessed marine fish stocks—about 35 percent—are now fished beyond biologically sustainable limits  . Earlier syntheses often quoted “one quarter” as a convenient benchmark, but successive SOFIA reports document a steady upward drift, so a figure of 25 percent is now dated. The key take-away is that over-fishing is no longer a marginal problem: it affects one stock in three, signalling systemic management shortfalls rather than isolated failures.
The estimated loss of forest area during the industrial era is
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Loss of global forest area during the industrial era → ≈ 40 %
Reconstructions based on historical land-use datasets (e.g., HYDE, LandCover6K) indicate that pre-industrial closed forests covered ≈ 62 million km². Continuous cropland expansion, timber extraction and pasture conversion between 1750 CE and the present have removed on the order of 25 million km², a contraction of ~40 %. Although regional trajectories differ (temperate afforestation vs. tropical deforestation), the net global signal remains a loss of roughly two-fifths of the original forest estate—a central figure widely quoted by IPCC Working Group II and FAO Global Forest Resources Assessments.
Species extinction and overharvesting of medicinal plants…
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
Species Extinction & Overharvesting of Medicinal Plants: “Diminishing Availability of These Resources” 😬💀
• What’s Happening?
Humans are busy ripping out populations of medicinal plants faster than a clearance‐sale coupon burns through your wallet. Every uprooted root or stripped bark is one less chance to discover tomorrow’s life-saving compound.
• Why “Diminishing Availability”?
• Population Collapse: Overharvesting pushes local subpopulations below viable thresholds—meaning they can’t replenish themselves. Poof—they vanish, along with any rare alkaloids or flavonoids lurking in their tissues.
• Extinction Debt: Even if a small patch survives, genetic diversity plummets. Less diversity = fewer chemotypes for drug discovery. We literally erase nature’s R&D department.
• Lost Ecosystem Memory: Many medicinal compounds only express under specific stress or symbiotic conditions. Eradicate the plant, and you wipe out that ecological “tuning fork” forever.
• Dark Take-Home:
Instead of a thriving pharmacopeia in our backyard, we’ll end up with empty herbariums and boardroom slides promising “synthetic alternatives.” Meanwhile, half the cures will still be trapped in dead forests. 🤡🦴